Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 06/20/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claim 1 has /have been amended, claims 14-20 has /have been cancelled previously, claim 22 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-13 and 21-22 are pending in the application with claims 2-5 and 11-13 previously withdrawn. Action on the merits for claims 1, 6-10 and 21-22 are as follow.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (07-30-03) MPEP 2111 system circuitry controller
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “a heating part… is configured to initiate heating” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “part” coupled with functional language “to initiate heating” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1 and 22 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [00102], Referring to FIG. 6, the heating part HP may include a film FM, a heating layer HU, and an insulation layer IU.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6-10 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the heating part is configured to initiate heating” in line 9 rendering the claim indefinite. According to the Specification [00157-00158] and Fig 20, the heating part was controlled under the process S110, it is unclear how the heating part initiate heating as claimed? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the temperature sensor initiates sensing” in line 3 rendering the claim indefinite. According to the Specification [00157, 00162] and Figs 20 and 21, the temperature sensor TS was controlled under the process S110 and S210 respectively, it is unclear how the temperature sensor initiates sensing as claimed? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the heating part is configured to initiate heating” in line 9 rendering the claim indefinite. According to the Specification [00157-00158] and Fig 20, the heating part was controlled under the process S110, it is unclear how the heating part initiate heating as claimed? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2016/0062412 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Park et al. disclose a display device (flexible display device 4, [0046], Figs 1-5) comprising:
a window (a transparent protective panel 43, [0050], Figs 1-5);
a case member (a flexible display device 41, [0050], Figs 1-5) disposed below the window and foldable;
a display panel (a touch panel 42, [0050], Figs 1-5) disposed between the window and the case member and in which a folding area is defined (a third part 4c, [0047], Fig 3);
a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 200, [0082], Fig 11) disposed between the window and case member to sense a temperature (a temperature of the third part 4c, [0082]); and
a heating part (a heating member 100, [0066], Fig 11) disposed on an area which overlaps the folding area in a plan view (details in Fig 11),
wherein the heating part is configured to initiate heating the display device when a measurement temperature measured in the temperature sensor is less than a predetermined temperature (temperature sensor 200 may detect a temperature around the heating member 100 of the flexible display device 4, [0082]; a temperature of the flexible display device 4 does not exceed a temperature limit, [0098], Fig 15) during a folding or unfolding process of the folding area (the controller is configured to determine at least one of a folding operation and an unfolding operation, [0012]; a controller 8 that controls an operation of the foldable device, [0061], Fig 9), and
wherein the heat part is configured to operate to maintain a temperature of the folding area (see a third part 4c and a heating member 100, Figs 3 and 11) at a value equal to or greater than the predetermined temperature during a folding or unfolding process of the folding area (Clearly, the control 8 is capable of control “a value equal to or greater than the predetermined temperature during a folding or unfolding process of the folding area” as claimed, see MPEP 2114).
Claim 21, wherein the display device (flexible display device 4, [0046], Figs 1-5) defines a first direction, a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (details see Figs 1-5),
wherein the first direction is parallel to a folding axis of the display device (details see Figs 1-5),
wherein the third direction is a thickness direction of the display device (details see Figs 1-5), and
wherein the temperature sensor (temperature sensor 200, [0082], Fig 11) does not overlap the heating part (a heating member 100, [0066], Fig 11) along the second direction (details see Figs 1-5 and 11).
Regarding Independent Claim 22, Park et al. disclose an electronic device comprising a display device (flexible display device 4, [0046], Figs 1-5) comprising:
a window (a transparent protective panel 43, [0050], Figs 1-5);
a case member (a flexible display device 41, [0050], Figs 1-5) disposed below the window and foldable;
a display panel (a touch panel 42, [0050], Figs 1-5) disposed between the window and the case member and in which a folding area is defined (a third part 4c, [0047], Fig 3);
a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 200, [0082], Fig 11) disposed between the window and case member to sense a temperature (a temperature of the third part 4c, [0082]); and
a heating part (a heating member 100, [0066], Fig 11) disposed on an area which overlaps the folding area in a plan view (details in Fig 11),
wherein the heating part is configured to initiate heating the display device when a measurement temperature measured in the temperature sensor is less than a predetermined temperature (temperature sensor 200 may detect a temperature around the heating member 100 of the flexible display device 4, [0082]; a temperature of the flexible display device 4 does not exceed a temperature limit, [0098], Fig 15) during a folding or unfolding process of the folding area (the controller is configured to determine at least one of a folding operation and an unfolding operation, [0012]; a controller 8 that controls an operation of the foldable device, [0061], Fig 9), and
wherein the heat part is configured to operate to maintain a temperature of the folding area (see a third part 4c and a heating member 100, Figs 3 and 11) at a value equal to or greater than the predetermined temperature during a folding or unfolding process of the folding area (Clearly, the control 8 is capable of control “a value equal to or greater than the predetermined temperature during a folding or unfolding process of the folding area” as claimed, see MPEP 2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park
et al. (US 2016/0062412 A1) in view of Browning (US 4,951,150).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Park et al. discloses: Claim 6, wherein the heating part
comprises a first heating part and a second heating part (heating members 101, 102,
and 103, [0086], Fig 12), wherein the second heating part is disposed below the display
panel (provided on the rear surface of the flexible display divide 4, [0086]). Park et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 6 the first heating part is disposed on the display panel and Claim 7.
Browning teaches wherein a first heating part is disposed on the display panel
(a resistive heating element 50 on the front face of the optical flat 19, Col 7 line 64-65.
Note: "the display panel" taught by Park et al. already) and Claim 7, wherein a
temperature of the first heating part greater than a temperature of the second heating
part ("the first heating part" and "the second heating part" taught by Park et al. already)
when the display panel is changed from a first state that the display device is folded to a
second state that the display device is unfolded (taught by Park et al. already, in Figs 1-
3), and a temperature of the first heating part (a resistive heating element 50, Col 7 line
65) has is lower than a temperature of the second heating part when the display panel
is changed from the second state to the first state (taught by Park et al. already, in Figs
1-3. Clearly, the controller 8 of Park et al. capable of controlling the device at different
positions based on the temperature difference as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Park et al. with Browning's further teaching of Claims 6-7; Browning teaches, Col 7 line 59-65, of providing a temperature regulation system for bettering control of the operational temperature during process.
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park
et al. (US 2016/0062412 A1) in view of Charania et al. (US 2015/0278478 A1).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Park et al. discloses the invention substantially as
claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 8-9.
Charania et al. teach Claim 8, further comprising an authentification sensor
which obtains authentification information (Container 210 may compare the received
authentication information with the configured authentication information, [0070]),
wherein the temperature sensor initiates sensing of the temperature to measure the measurement temperature (controller 8 may drive the heating member 100 or the heating members 101, 102, and 103 so the temperature of the flexible display device 4 does not exceed a temperature limit based on the detected temperature, [0088], taught by Park et al.) when the authentification sensor obtains the authentification information (received authentication information, [0070]. Clearly, the heating part capable of operates the device as claimed).
Claim 9, wherein the case member comprises a locking device (lockable lid 512, [0058]), and
wherein the locking device locks the case member (lockable lid 512, [0058], not authorized to unlick the lockable lid and may keep the lockable lid locked, [0070]. Note: "the case member" taught by Park et al.) when the measurement temperature is determined to be less than the predetermined temperature (controller 8 may drive the heating member 100 or the heating members 101, 102, and 103 so the temperature of the flexible display device 4 does not exceed a temperature limit based on the detected temperature, [0088], taught by Park et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Park et al. with Charania et al.'s further teaching of Claims 8-9; because Charania et al. teach, in Abstract, of providing an excellent locking system for securing the device for operational safety during process.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2016/0062412 A1) in view of Kato (US 2003/0011735 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Park et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed
and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 10.
Kato teaches a display device (a display device 1, [0020], Figs 1 A-1 B), and Claim 10, wherein the heating part (a transparent heating material affixed to the surface of a transparent glass plate, [0024], Figs 2A-2B. Note: "the heating part" taught by Park et al. already) is a transparent surface heater, and the temperature sensor (a thermistor 13 is a temperature sensor, [0023]. Note: "the temperature sensor" taught by Park et al. already) is a thermistor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Park et al. with Kate's further teaching of Claim 10; because Kato teaches, in Abstract, of providing a simplified structure to efficiently heat up the display device during operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the current claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “As explained in the specification with respect to in FIGS. 21-23 of the present application, when the measurement temperature measured in the temperature sensor is less than a predetermined temperature, the heating part initiates heating the display device (see, e.g., steps S230-S240, S330-S350). By initiating heating when the measurement temperature measured in the temperature sensor is less than a predetermined temperature, "even when the display device is used in the low temperature environment, the area corresponding to the folding area may maintain the value equal to or greater than the predetermined temperature by the heating part," and "a crack may be prevented from being generated in the components of the display device when the display device is folded or unfolded." In contrast, Park discloses initiating heating upon detecting unfolding/folding operations by determining that a resistance value of the folding/unfolding operation sensor 300 has decreased/increased to reach first/second critical resistance values (see, e.g., steps S401-S41 l and S401-421). That is, Park discloses unfolding/folding operations as being the trigger to initiate heating (see, e.g., step S412, S422). Temperature is measured by the temperature sensor 200 only after the heating has already started, and the temperature measurement is used to determine whether to continue or to cease heating. In view of the above, Park fails to teach the heating part being configured to initiate heating the display device when the measurement temperature measured in the temperature sensor is less than a predetermined temperature during a folding or unfolding process of the folding area, as required by amended claim 1”, and “As explained in the specification with respect to FIGS. 21 and 22 of the present application, an authentification sensor obtains authentification information (see, e.g., steps S210, S310) and, upon receipt of the authentification information, initiates measurement of sensing of the temperature to obtain a measurement temperature (see, e.g., steps S220, S230). By initiating measurement of the temperature upon receipt of the authentication, "since a voltage is provided to the heating part HP only when the state change of the display device DD is expected, power consumption may decrease."”.
The examiner’s response: The currently cited prior art disclosed exactly a display device as claimed, fully disclose all the recited limitations of Claims as set forth in this final office action shown above; also, . According to MPEP 2163.03.V: Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.". Also, the argument about “the heating part HP initiates heating the display device DD” is mot persuadable as shown above in the 112(b) rejection; during examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention”; see MPEP 2173.01(I). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, supervisor Dana Ross can be reached on 571/272-4480, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, or supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights